Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3346 (ALL)

Jaiprakash v. D. D. C.

2014-11-11

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Anant Vijai, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 5. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Chitrakoot (for short, the DDC). The petitioner is aggrieved by plot No. 666 having been allotted to the respondents by the impugned order. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the contesting respondents preferred an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act). Their claim was that the second chak proposed to them on plot Nos. 294/1, 707, 705 and 710 be abolished, and they be allotted chak on plot No. 969. A copy of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has not been annexed with the writ petition. It has only been stated that the prayer of the respondents was granted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, the SOC). 3. Despite such relief having been granted, as was claimed by the contesting respondents, they preferred a revision, which was allowed allotting to them plot No. 666, which was the joint-holding of the parties and was valuable roadside land. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that this revision was highly time-barred and yet it was allowed granting the relief which had not been claimed either before the Consolidation Officer or before the SOC. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the following judgments in support of his contention that the DDC cannot substitute his own findings in exercise of powers under section 48 of the Act and act as the Consolidation Officer or the SOC after re-appreciating the evidence: "1. Salik and another v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2002 (93) RD 1 . 2. Jangi Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2002 (93) RD 3 3. 3. Smt. Bechna v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2001 (92) RD 693 ." 5. The bone of contention between the parties, therefore, is plot No. 666, area whereof has been excluded from the chak of the petitioners and allotted in the chak of the respondents. 6. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2002 (93) RD 3 3. 3. Smt. Bechna v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2001 (92) RD 693 ." 5. The bone of contention between the parties, therefore, is plot No. 666, area whereof has been excluded from the chak of the petitioners and allotted in the chak of the respondents. 6. It has also come on record that this plot No. 666 was initially recorded as 'mitrook' but was subsequently ordered to be recorded in the names of the parties by means of an objection under section 9 of the Act. 7. From the facts notices above, it is clear that the objection of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the contesting respondents never raised any claim to plot No. 666 either before the Consolidation Officer or before the SOC in proceedings for allotment of chaks. This claim was raised for the first time at the revisional stage and, therefore, the same could not have been considered or granted. 8. It is admitted on record that plot No. 666 was recorded as 'matrook' at the start of the consolidation operations and was recorded in the names of the parties in pursuance of an order passed on an objection under section 9 of the Act. In such circumstances, it is clear that the claim to plot No. 666 has been raised by the contesting respondents only after this plot was recorded in their names. No claim to plot No. 666 could have been raised till such time the parties were held to be the owners thereof and, therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner lacks substance. 9. It would be relevant to note that the DDC has recorded that plot No. 666 area 0.875 hectares was the joint holding of the parties and valuable roadside land. Only chak-holder Nos. 9 and 64, namely the petitioners, had been allotted chaks thereon abutting the road, on the reasoning that his chak revision had already been decided and a writ petition with regard to the same is pending consideration before the High Court. The reasoning given by the DDC is also borne out by the record and the modifications made are in consonance with the Govt. Orders issued regarding allotment of such valuable roadside land. 10. The reasoning given by the DDC is also borne out by the record and the modifications made are in consonance with the Govt. Orders issued regarding allotment of such valuable roadside land. 10. It is, therefore, clear that substantial justice had been done between the parties by the order impugned. The writ petition, therefore, has been filed as the petitioners who were in an advantageous position prior to the passing of the impugned order as they had been allotted chak on plot No. 666 abutting the road. A perusal of the correction chart appended to the impugned order shows that all the parties have been allotted portions of this valuable roadside land in their chaks. The petitioner is trying to find fault with this equitable distribution on mere technicalities. As already noted hereinbelow, the claim to plot No. 666 was raised by the contesting respondents only after the entry of 'matrook' was corrected and the plot in question was recorded in their names. As such, the same cannot be faulted with. 11. The judgments cited do not help the petitioners because they deal with the situation existing prior to the amendment of section 48 of the Act, whereby explanation (3) was incorporated therein, which reads as follows: "Explanation (3).--The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, where of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence." Accordingly, and for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks force and is accordingly dismissed.